Kanada Kev Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18687287/Ex-Grateful Dead musician suing YouTubeGrisman contends site using his videos illegally, seeks compensationThe Associated PressUpdated: 9:11 p.m. ET May 15, 2007SAN FRANCISCO - A mandolin player who recorded with The Grateful Dead is suing YouTube for posting his videos illegally.David Grisman, nicknamed "Dawg" by former Dead guitarist and singer Jerry Garcia, filed the copyright infringement lawsuit May 10 in federal court in San Francisco.Grisman and business partner Craig Miller, who run the San Rafael-based studio Acoustic Disc, said the case is about helping independent musicians whose music is distributed without authorization by YouTube's owner, Google Inc.The two seek an unspecified amount of money from revenue that Google received from their clips."We are looking out for ourselves and all the other people like us — musicians and independent publishers," Miller told The Associated Press on Tuesday.The lawsuit says Google and YouTube "deliberately refuse to take meaningful steps to deter the rampant infringing activity readily apparent on YouTube."Grisman appears to be following Viacom Inc., which filed suit claiming YouTube used digital technology to "willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale." Viacom says Google facilitated the unauthorized viewing of Viacom's programing from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks.In a response filed last month in the Viacom case, Google said YouTube respects the importance of copyrights and does more than is required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The law gives Web hosts protection from copyright lawsuits so long as they comply with requests to remove unauthorized material.Representatives from Mountain View-based Google did not respond to phone calls and e-mails Tuesday.While the lawsuit may seem a departure for Grisman who played with the Grateful Dead, a band that tacitly encouraged fans to record shows and distribute "bootleg" tapes of their lives shows, Miller said their is a difference between fan bootlegs and the global distribution of Google."No one's looking out for the little guy," he said.© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18687287/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 He should write a scathing bluegrass song with ironic lyircs about YouTube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanada Kev Posted May 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Hey, thanks for sharing that kickass video. I REALLY liked it. Hmmmmm ... who was it? Jerry Garcia and who? Oh, David Grisman. Cool. I'm definitely going to check out some more of his shit. You telling me that he's got a website that sells stuff? Right On! I'm going over there now to spend some money on his tunes. Bummer, too bad he sued Youtube and got his stuff removed. I just might have "discovered" the Dawg and chosen to buy some of his shit. Oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Maybe Grisman should play a mandola instead of a mandolin so he doesn't feel like quite such a "little guy".Really, I find this puzzling. He has what must be hundreds of hours of pure musical gold behind him, only a teeny fraction of which is around on youtube, which, I'd think, would only serve to prime the pump. He's one of those artists I find I'd have pay money for to get the real goods. And when's the last time he's come to, say, Ontario for a live show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Maybe he needs money, and this is the only way he knows (or perhaps the most lucrative and easy to accomplish) to achieve this goal. Intellectual property does more harm than good IMO.The ideas are still really cool though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nibbler Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Nugs must be getting a bit pricey in Marin County these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Funk Dawg Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 I'm with my fellow Dawg on this one, Youtube only became a phenonom because of all the illegal material it was hosting... in the same way Napster blew-up. The major networks were entitled to some money from Napster.. and Youtune for that matter. I think small indies like Grisman should get his due? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nibbler Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) Cmon Jay,Youtube didn't become a phenomenon because of hosting illegal material. Thats an easy cop out in this discussion.And Grisman a small indy? Please man, that guy is The Godfather of the Bluegrass Mafia. His label is huge, so is his spread by the ocean in California, and he owns more Pre-war Gibson Mandolins than all of the bible belt put together.My first exposures to just about every Jamband and Bluegrass band was through tapers.The music shared by the people is the philosophy that built a name for taper friendly bands. Its about access. Have you ever posted Youtube content of a performer to help hype a show you were putting on? Rhetorical question. Even if you have not, don't worry, thanks to Youtube and the jambands community spirit, others do it for you all the time, making your job of selling tickets at the door that much easier.Dr Evil Mouse makes a good point. When was the last time Dawg and the Quintet came here to sell CDs and pick some tunes for us? If it's because he's afraid to sink the cash into exposing his music to a new market; why not use Youtube and market for free instead?Maybe I'm using the wrong words to express my viewpoint here."Don't criticize it, LEGALIZE IT"(p.s. go to Jay Cleary's shows and buy Grisman's CD's, they rock as clearly seen on Youtube!) Edited May 16, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 I'm actually on Grisman's side on this one, not because I'm against YouTube (I'm not) or taping (I'm a taper), but because it's his decision (or choice). A lot of the arguments that have been offered here are of the form, "Hey, we think this is a good idea, so Grisman should just let us do it, regardless of what he wants." If Grisman doesn't want videos of himself on YouTube, then he/they shouldn't be on YouTube. It's his choice, and he'll have to live with the consequences (whatever they are) that result from it.Do I wish more bands allowed free taping (even video; I only record audio) and sharing, including uploads to YouTube? Yes. Can I make a strong case for using freely available recordings as a good way to promote an artist and expand an artist's fan base? Yes. If an artist doesn't want to be recorded or have stuff uploaded, will I still do it? No.Aloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanada Kev Posted May 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Brad, I completely understand your point. It would be nice if we all had a choice as to where/when/how anything about us is published. What does Grisman think about photos/videos of himself being used on the news? What about in newspapers/magazines? Does he have to approve every single one of those as well?The only reason I ask those questions, is that I see Youtube/Internet as almost an alternate publishing device. Yes, I know that rights are required for publishing photos. However, those are usually received from, and paid to, the photographer not the subject. If I want to publish an article on Grisman, I don't have to ask his permission to, but I do have to pay for any photo I use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancingbear Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 My first exposures to just about every Jamband and Bluegrass band was through tapers.The music shared by the people is the philosophy that built a name for taper friendly bands. Its about access. I completely agree with this. I also agree with BradM, making me think that it is just a wrong business (and moral) decision by grisman or just a quick cash grab. If i was one of these young struggling artists, I would think the exposure would be better than the costs, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nibbler Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) Brad, much as I respect a musician's decision to allow taping or not, I'm not so black and white about it when the musician in question is A) Very well established, and Owing a large part of that established and permantent success to previous marketing focused on the taper friendly crowd. Its a bit of a reneg IMO. Do I wish more bands allowed taping? Not really. Most taper friendly bands rock, and bands that are good enough will get taped wether they allow it or not. (Take that Mr Zappa!! hehe, I'm sure Frank can take it on this day, as he's quite preoccupied delivering a live soundtrack of guitar notes to irritate and welcome a mr fallwell kind of guy...) In respect to Don Dawg's decision I saw KRS One at PJC in October last year. (Killer show! anyone tape it?) I was more impressed with his take on this general issue. He said, to the effect of: If an artist has made and successfully sold 5 albums, then from album 6 on, the rest should be next to free... giving smaller artists a chance to compete for the limited dollar available in the music market. His argument is that mega hit artists squeeze out opportunity for the little guy to survive, and well, I think KRS had a really good point there. I reckon there are more copies of Old And In The Way sold every day (In Canada) than Andrew Collins and the Creaking Tree String Quartet can sell globally in a year. Add another dozen Pre-war Gibsons to the Dawgs collection thanks to the Jamband crowds. Edited May 16, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisley Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 I went looking for some particular footage of Jimmy Rosenberg playing as a kid and was met by "content removed at the request of artist" messages... it was old forgotten tv footage that had been recently been used in a documentary, at which point it was pulled off YouTube(after they were made aware of it)... imagine the problem is policing so much content... pull it off from here, up it pops over there... tough to stay on top ofin any case, anyone with eyes can see this is all Metallica's fault (joking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Yeah, I'd go for that. Ask for the stuff to be removed... flag his name and have it automaticially remove things which refernce him... from the site in question. End of story. Hopefully that's where the lawsuit ends, and he's not suing for a million bucks or something. Hard to argue the YouTube wholely preventing him from making a thousand bucks or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nibbler Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Read the article Will. Its not about removing the content, its about buying even MORE mandolins! Don Grisman and his loyal henchman "...seek an unspecified amount of money from revenue that Google received from their clips."What's stopping Dawg from putting up free content on his own server and making money off google ads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Hehe, I like to stay to my logic... but if that's the case... Boo Grisman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau. Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 I've recieved emails (still have them) from both the BBC and Texas Songwriters Assoc. via Youtube saying if I did not remove certian content legal action would follow due to copyright infringement, in this case I had a Joni Mitchell video (BBC 71) and a John Prine video (ACL 91 I think), both were songs NOT shown on the original broadcasts, nor were released officially.Youtube removed the videos right away, then disabled my account without notice and from what I can tell have banned my IP from starting a new account.I can't say I fault Grisman for not wanting his material (official or not) on youtube, but suing seems a bit extreme given they do actually take care of removal at the artists requests and are seemingly on top of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouche Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 That is a stupid stance on Grisman's part. I doubt Google or Youtube are making big bucks off of videos that he's in. Sure it's his choice but it's a stupid and uninformed choice.These days, you gotta embrace technologies that make it easier for people to get to know you. Where in the fuck are people going to even see or hear of David Grisman without user submitted content like that found on youtube? I haven't seen a mere mention of him on TV in the last 10 years, and I doubt there's been one video containing him played in that many either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nibbler Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Boo him all you like. Just make sure to listen to the original DGQ album; its incredible! Dawg, Tony Rice, Todd Phillips, Darol Anger, Bill Amatneek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booche Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Mike heads to Oink in 3.........2.............1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Ya! My emotions are so conflicted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Funk Dawg Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 The way i see it, it's should be the artist's choice how their music is being distributed. In this case he has had no choice. A small niche artist like Grisman probably doesn't care to get more publicity & exposure... he has his little following, and that who he caters to. Having all this free stuff out there probably doesn't drive his CD sales, it probably actually takes away from it. This guy is no idiot, he's been running a successful indie record label for years, and is probably in the pool of artist that were hurt the most by the digital mp3 trading / file swapping situation.Bouche, Great video, I like how Paul Shafer was playing with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) I love how you support the idea of Grisman being the victim here, then go right ahead and support/benefit the sorce of his pain.FTR, I think he's wrong, and watched the video. I could be wrong, but atleast I'm consistant.And 'hurt the most'?! How has he been hurt? An unrealized gain is not a loss. And it sounds like he has assests over a million dollars with all those fiddles... he'll survive.Just another example of an artist unable to reconcile their ego with the changing market forces in the industry!! Edited May 16, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Don't trust anyone over 60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now